So the Nazarene Christians existed... when? Oh, I thought it was protestant.

“We shall now especially consider heretics who... call themselves Nazarenes; they are mainly Jews and nothing else. They make use not only of the New Testament, but they also use in a way the Old Testament of the Jews, for they do not forbid the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, so that they are approved by the Jews, from whom the Nazarenes do not differ in anything, and they profess all the dogmas pertaining to the prescriptions of the Law and to the customs of the Jews, except they believe in Messiah.... They preach that there is but one God and His Son Yeshua the Messiah. But they are very learned in the Hebrew language, for they, like the Jews, read the whole Law, then the prophets.... They differ from Jews because they believe in Messiah and from Christians in that they are this day bound to Jewish rites, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies. They have the good news according to Matthew in it’s entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.... Otherwise, this sect of Nazarenes thrives most vigorously in the state of Berea , in Coele-Syria, in Decapolis, around Pella , and in Bashan .... After they departed from Jerusalem , they made their start from here, as all the disciples dwelt in Pella , having been admonished by Christ to depart Jerusalem and emigrate because of imminent danger.” Epiphanius (church father), Panarion 29, 390 A.D.

390 A.D. folks, and that was not their inception.

Sure, Epiphanius called them heretics. Easy label.

Just making a point that the quip that saying "Yeshua" is a modern protestant inception, is invalid.

These Nazarites have a deep history. The more I uncover on them, the more I realize just how little of Christianity I know.

Here you also have an Orthodox Church "Father" stating Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.

Is calling Jesus by a name they can't pronounce the distinctive mark of orthopraxy for today's neo-Nazarenes? Seems a little silly to me. Why does this matter even slightly to anyone, ever? I don't get it.

Is calling Jesus by a name they can't pronounce the distinctive mark of orthopraxy for today's neo-Nazarenes? Seems a little silly to me. Why does this matter even slightly to anyone, ever? I don't get it.

Some take it further by saying "Yahushua" and "Yahuwah." They make it even more annoying on themselves to say.

Here you also have an Orthodox Church "Father" stating Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek (emphasis mine).

Oh, c'mon. That's just trolling.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 04:47:20 AM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Is calling Jesus by a name they can't pronounce the distinctive mark of orthopraxy for today's neo-Nazarenes? Seems a little silly to me. Why does this matter even slightly to anyone, ever? I don't get it.

Some take it further by saying "Yahushua" and "Yahuwah." They make it even more annoying on themselves to say.

The problem is there are those who insist on calling him Yeshua and nothing else. These are your radical messianics who don't want anything that traditional Christianity has accepted and want a purely jewish belief system devoid of anything gentile. It must also be said that the idea Mathew was written in Hebrew is not first found in Epiphanius but in fragments of an earlier father, ie Papias who says it was written in hebrew tongue.

But there is a clear precedent in accepting the name Jesus by the rest of the bible which was primarily written in greek, that Paul finds it acceptable to call him Iesous is good enough reason for me to call him Jesus.

Why is the New Testament not enough for the Judaizers that they have to 'reconstruct' Christ's name?

« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 12:08:22 PM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

A) There were early Christians practicing the Jewish festivals before the "church" made them "illegal" via cannon. The festivals that Yeshua celebrated, and the Sabbath that Yeshua kept. B) There were early Christians that were not part of the "Holy Apostolic Catholic Church" who were not: 1) Gnostics 2) Iconoclasts 3) Arians 4) But of course still labeled hereticsC) Matthew was ORIGINALLY written in Hebrew according to this quote.D) The side point is that many Orthodox are unaware that their church forbade the festivals that "Jesus" (Yeshua) kept. E) The Orthodox do not Observe the Sabbath as commanded by God, that Jesus (Yeshua) kept - from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday (aka 7th day). From this early quote you can see that there WERE in fact early Christians (non gentile) that kept the Sabbath & Feasts while believing in the son of God. The "Sunday" worship was formalized in Nicea in 325.F) These early Christians kept Kosher and the laws of the Jews (as Jesus (Yeshua) did) and have the belief in the son of God.

What this shows me is that there were people that existed who did this EARLY on. It's not just a protestant "sola scriptura" bunch that is new.

So I hope the commentaries that this is all a sola scriptura approach, and some of the arguments I have presented on this forum are "new", can now stop. This is old, arguably as old as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church claims to be.

The problem is there are those who insist on calling him Yeshua and nothing else. These are your radical messianics who don't want anything that traditional Christianity has accepted and want a purely jewish belief system devoid of anything gentile. It must also be said that the idea Mathew was written in Hebrew is not first found in Epiphanius but in fragments of an earlier father, ie Papias who says it was written in hebrew tongue.

But there is a clear precedent in accepting the name Jesus by the rest of the bible which was primarily written in greek, that Paul finds it acceptable to call him Iesous is good enough reason for me to call him Jesus.

What is traditional Christianity?vs.What is early Christianity?

They are not the same.

Just remember, its easier to attack something rather than try to understand something. Just as Epiphanius said "Heretics". Today I hear "protestants, sola scriptura, radical messianics".

390 A.D. is old. If they had Matthew in Hebrew and kept the feasts of the Jews, I would not doubt they go waaay back.

Why is the New Testament not enough for the Judaizers that they have to 'reconstruct' Christ's name?

Nazarites.

Why was his name de-constructed?Ah yes, because of the Greeks.

Then "re-constructed" to English from the Greek. iesus to Jesus.

Rather than translated from the original Aramaic to English.

Why do you think it matters? It makes no difference at all if someone refers to me as Iacob, Iacobos, Kuba, Jim or James (just to pick ones I recall being called, though I draw the line at Jamie or Jimmy) as they all mean the same thing, regardless of the fact that I was actually baptised James. I didn't even mind when someone I knew wrote it as Geimz when they didn't know how to spell it. I know more than a few Romanians who 'translate' their names when speaking in English and introduce themselves as, for example, John rather than Ioan, so they obviously don't mind either. If we humans can manage with variants on our names and still recognise them as referring to us, why do you seem to think that Christ couldn't? Unless of course, there's a grain of truth in what Cyrillic wrote regarding name worshipping.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

The lord's day as the principle day of worship in which Christians gather was within the church since the earilest centuries, specifically in Ignatius whom says we have the Lord's day over the sabbath, because it is the day which Jesus rose. Justin martyr also testified to this in his apology (chapter 67) and it has been the norm throughout all centuries for most Christians. The council of NIcea did not formalize sunday worship (as far as I can tell) but formalized the day of pascha (another early Christian practice, celebrating the ressurection of the lord, not the old jewish pascha). That you would condemn us for keeping this day which is apostolic when saint Paul said otherwise is not wise (dont let anyone judge you for the days you keep), shows that you either disregaurd saint Paul, or reinterpret him.

So it ultimately comes down to this, would God let the true church which you seem to think is the Nazerenes fail and be utterly destroyed or fade away into non existence? Or will he be with his body forever? Take in mind it was the church you dismiss which has preserved the gospels and those works which attest to the authenticity of the gospels.

Why do you think it matters? It makes no difference at all if someone refers to me as Iacob, Iacobos, Kuba, Jim or James (just to pick ones I recall being called, though I draw the line at Jamie or Jimmy) as they all mean the same thing, regardless of the fact that I was actually baptised James. I didn't even mind when someone I knew wrote it as Geimz when they didn't know how to spell it. I know more than a few Romanians who 'translate' their names when speaking in English and introduce themselves as, for example, John rather than Ioan, so they obviously don't mind either. If we humans can manage with variants on our names and still recognise them as referring to us, why do you seem to think that Christ couldn't? Unless of course, there's a grain of truth in what Cyrillic wrote regarding name worshipping

Thats the whole issue. Folks with these silly ideas need to find ANY kind of legitimization for their beliefs that they go all the way back to the beginning of the church. So, as the quote goes, "If you go looking for something to prove something right or wrong, either way, you'll find it." The whole Yeshua thing is just another example. The Messianics and those like them find one thing in history and scream ,"Hey! Thats us!" and disregard everything else. 7th Day'ers and lots of Baptists do the same exact thing. Reading the arguments about whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or <insert non-Greek language here> is discussed by lots of scholars. The sayings of Jesus may have very well been written in Aramaic (or Hebrew), or they might not have. The thing is, in the gospel in its entirety does not show the marks of translation. Even folks that believe that the sayings of Jesus were written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) say that. Really, it does not matter, even if it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was the one taught in the early Church, and was the one canonized. It would also be the one from which every Bible in the world gets its Gospel of Matthew (lets leave The Message out of this orthonorm )

So, if you want to attack what most historians believe, including the publishers of the bible you read, more power to you. Paul said Iesous, and so did every one else. Thats good enough for me.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

YIM creates this thread (a topic which he has argued about numerous times) after getting slapped around for a while about how he would treat his hypothetical gay child.

For someone who seems to be at the ready to demand his right to literally hit his own kids, he can't even take a little figurative beating.

Somehow, I find this unsurprising.

For the deflection, who cares?

Matthew was in Hebrew originally. Maybe. Who cares?

Hebrew speakers may have called Jesus something similar to Yeshua. Who cares?

YIM, how many times do you have to get shut down on this topic?

These are matters of some concern for those who study such things, but are of no theological import for the lay person.

The fact you place a string of characters in the center of whatever misagos of a theology you have cobbled together is of no import to anyone except give insight that your homebrewed-DIY-flawed approach to life infects even how you view God.

At best it is a cautionary tale for those who would follow your lone ranger method in any sense lest it lead to this utter nonsense.

What do the Judaizers think about St. Paul? What about the Epistle to the Galatians?

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

What do the Judaizers think about St. Paul? What about the Epistle to the Galatians?

As I said, as soon as folks find their legitimization, they discard the rest. Heck, we're ALL guilty of doing it at one point of another.

PP

Fair enough. But I'm still curious. Do they hate St. Paul or just ignore him?

« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 01:22:30 PM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Sha'ul is explaining here that because of mainstream Israel's rejection of Messiah, non-Israelites (wild olive branches) who accept Yeshua have been given a place in Israel's cultivated olive tree. But note these wild olive branches remain wild. Gentiles do not become Israelites here, they merely share the tree with believing Israel. Gentiles are further warned not to boast about G-d placing them in the tree, because they too can be removed. In fact, G-d reminds them that the natural branches would graft back in well since its their own tree and their own nature to be included in it; but it is contrary to the very nature of the wild branches that they too are included! So yes, Gentiles can be placed in the tree of Israel, but at no point do they become cultivated -- they always remain wild branches grafted into a tree not their own. When a Gentile becomes a part of Israel, they still remain a Gentile (albeit a Gentile counted among Israelites). Now note: The One grafting these wild branches in is G-d, not man. No conversion ritual is needed -- this is a purely supernatural event!

Seems kind of far fetched to me.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Why is the New Testament not enough for the Judaizers that they have to 'reconstruct' Christ's name?

Nazarites.

Why was his name de-constructed?Ah yes, because of the Greeks.

Then "re-constructed" to English from the Greek. iesus to Jesus.

Rather than translated from the original Aramaic to English.

Why do you think it matters? It makes no difference at all if someone refers to me as Iacob, Iacobos, Kuba, Jim or James (just to pick ones I recall being called, though I draw the line at Jamie or Jimmy) as they all mean the same thing, regardless of the fact that I was actually baptised James. I didn't even mind when someone I knew wrote it as Geimz when they didn't know how to spell it. I know more than a few Romanians who 'translate' their names when speaking in English and introduce themselves as, for example, John rather than Ioan, so they obviously don't mind either. If we humans can manage with variants on our names and still recognise them as referring to us, why do you seem to think that Christ couldn't? Unless of course, there's a grain of truth in what Cyrillic wrote regarding name worshipping.

James

The quote was more than just the name. It is referencing a group of early Christians that were NOT protestant speaking in Hebrew, and keeping the feasts of the Jews. ++Sabbath

Why do you think it matters? It makes no difference at all if someone refers to me as Iacob, Iacobos, Kuba, Jim or James (just to pick ones I recall being called, though I draw the line at Jamie or Jimmy) as they all mean the same thing, regardless of the fact that I was actually baptised James. I didn't even mind when someone I knew wrote it as Geimz when they didn't know how to spell it. I know more than a few Romanians who 'translate' their names when speaking in English and introduce themselves as, for example, John rather than Ioan, so they obviously don't mind either. If we humans can manage with variants on our names and still recognise them as referring to us, why do you seem to think that Christ couldn't? Unless of course, there's a grain of truth in what Cyrillic wrote regarding name worshipping

Thats the whole issue. Folks with these silly ideas need to find ANY kind of legitimization for their beliefs that they go all the way back to the beginning of the church. So, as the quote goes, "If you go looking for something to prove something right or wrong, either way, you'll find it." The whole Yeshua thing is just another example. The Messianics and those like them find one thing in history and scream ,"Hey! Thats us!" and disregard everything else. 7th Day'ers and lots of Baptists do the same exact thing. Reading the arguments about whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or <insert non-Greek language here> is discussed by lots of scholars. The sayings of Jesus may have very well been written in Aramaic (or Hebrew), or they might not have. The thing is, in the gospel in its entirety does not show the marks of translation. Even folks that believe that the sayings of Jesus were written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) say that. Really, it does not matter, even if it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was the one taught in the early Church, and was the one canonized. It would also be the one from which every Bible in the world gets its Gospel of Matthew (lets leave The Message out of this orthonorm )

So, if you want to attack what most historians believe, including the publishers of the bible you read, more power to you. Paul said Iesous, and so did every one else. Thats good enough for me.

PP

It's not just about a name. There is a lot in that quote.

Look, Paul can say Iesous, and that is fine. The Greeks could not spell or pronounce his name in their language. King James translated "Jesus" from Greek, when his English could have just phonetically taken from the original.

Why do you think it matters? It makes no difference at all if someone refers to me as Iacob, Iacobos, Kuba, Jim or James (just to pick ones I recall being called, though I draw the line at Jamie or Jimmy) as they all mean the same thing, regardless of the fact that I was actually baptised James. I didn't even mind when someone I knew wrote it as Geimz when they didn't know how to spell it. I know more than a few Romanians who 'translate' their names when speaking in English and introduce themselves as, for example, John rather than Ioan, so they obviously don't mind either. If we humans can manage with variants on our names and still recognise them as referring to us, why do you seem to think that Christ couldn't? Unless of course, there's a grain of truth in what Cyrillic wrote regarding name worshipping

Thats the whole issue. Folks with these silly ideas need to find ANY kind of legitimization for their beliefs that they go all the way back to the beginning of the church. So, as the quote goes, "If you go looking for something to prove something right or wrong, either way, you'll find it." The whole Yeshua thing is just another example. The Messianics and those like them find one thing in history and scream ,"Hey! Thats us!" and disregard everything else. 7th Day'ers and lots of Baptists do the same exact thing. Reading the arguments about whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or <insert non-Greek language here> is discussed by lots of scholars. The sayings of Jesus may have very well been written in Aramaic (or Hebrew), or they might not have. The thing is, in the gospel in its entirety does not show the marks of translation. Even folks that believe that the sayings of Jesus were written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) say that. Really, it does not matter, even if it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was the one taught in the early Church, and was the one canonized. It would also be the one from which every Bible in the world gets its Gospel of Matthew (lets leave The Message out of this orthonorm )

So, if you want to attack what most historians believe, including the publishers of the bible you read, more power to you. Paul said Iesous, and so did every one else. Thats good enough for me.

PP

It's not just about a name. There is a lot in that quote.

Look, Paul can say Iesous, and that is fine. The Greeks could not spell or pronounce his name in their language. King James translated "Jesus" from Greek, when his English could have just phonetically taken from the original.

And you can't pronounce it either and neither can your youtube dude.

BTW, do you access to the private forums, cause there is a thread there with your name on it.

YIM creates this thread (a topic which he has argued about numerous times) after getting slapped around for a while about how he would treat his hypothetical gay child.

For someone who seems to be at the ready to demand his right to literally hit his own kids, he can't even take a little figurative beating.

Somehow, I find this unsurprising.

For the deflection, who cares?

Matthew was in Hebrew originally. Maybe. Who cares?

Hebrew speakers may have called Jesus something similar to Yeshua. Who cares?

YIM, how many times do you have to get shut down on this topic?

These are matters of some concern for those who study such things, but are of no theological import for the lay person.

The fact you place a string of characters in the center of whatever misagos of a theology you have cobbled together is of no import to anyone except give insight that your homebrewed-DIY-flawed approach to life infects even how you view God.

At best it is a cautionary tale for those who would follow your lone ranger method in any sense lest it lead to this utter nonsense.

I have never once been shut down on this topic.

I've had lots of personal attacks, and lots of "who cares".

"Utter nonsense" a personal attack pillaged through dissonance, of a quote from an Orthodox Church "Father".

And no, I was not slapped around about the hypothetical gay child. The Orthodox responses frightened me at the lack of the EO Christians understanding their own faith. Orthodox history proves (through excommunication) that my point was valid (men excommunicated because of them being non-repentive homosexuals). Unless of course you want to challenge Orthodox bishops here.... Or just call them wrong... Or say "who cares".

Why do you think it matters? It makes no difference at all if someone refers to me as Iacob, Iacobos, Kuba, Jim or James (just to pick ones I recall being called, though I draw the line at Jamie or Jimmy) as they all mean the same thing, regardless of the fact that I was actually baptised James. I didn't even mind when someone I knew wrote it as Geimz when they didn't know how to spell it. I know more than a few Romanians who 'translate' their names when speaking in English and introduce themselves as, for example, John rather than Ioan, so they obviously don't mind either. If we humans can manage with variants on our names and still recognise them as referring to us, why do you seem to think that Christ couldn't? Unless of course, there's a grain of truth in what Cyrillic wrote regarding name worshipping

Thats the whole issue. Folks with these silly ideas need to find ANY kind of legitimization for their beliefs that they go all the way back to the beginning of the church. So, as the quote goes, "If you go looking for something to prove something right or wrong, either way, you'll find it." The whole Yeshua thing is just another example. The Messianics and those like them find one thing in history and scream ,"Hey! Thats us!" and disregard everything else. 7th Day'ers and lots of Baptists do the same exact thing. Reading the arguments about whether or not the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or <insert non-Greek language here> is discussed by lots of scholars. The sayings of Jesus may have very well been written in Aramaic (or Hebrew), or they might not have. The thing is, in the gospel in its entirety does not show the marks of translation. Even folks that believe that the sayings of Jesus were written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) say that. Really, it does not matter, even if it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was the one taught in the early Church, and was the one canonized. It would also be the one from which every Bible in the world gets its Gospel of Matthew (lets leave The Message out of this orthonorm )

So, if you want to attack what most historians believe, including the publishers of the bible you read, more power to you. Paul said Iesous, and so did every one else. Thats good enough for me.

PP

It's not just about a name. There is a lot in that quote.

Look, Paul can say Iesous, and that is fine. The Greeks could not spell or pronounce his name in their language. King James translated "Jesus" from Greek, when his English could have just phonetically taken from the original.

And you can't pronounce it either and neither can your youtube dude.

BTW, do you access to the private forums, cause there is a thread there with your name on it.

YIM creates this thread (a topic which he has argued about numerous times) after getting slapped around for a while about how he would treat his hypothetical gay child.

For someone who seems to be at the ready to demand his right to literally hit his own kids, he can't even take a little figurative beating.

Somehow, I find this unsurprising.

For the deflection, who cares?

Matthew was in Hebrew originally. Maybe. Who cares?

Hebrew speakers may have called Jesus something similar to Yeshua. Who cares?

YIM, how many times do you have to get shut down on this topic?

These are matters of some concern for those who study such things, but are of no theological import for the lay person.

The fact you place a string of characters in the center of whatever misagos of a theology you have cobbled together is of no import to anyone except give insight that your homebrewed-DIY-flawed approach to life infects even how you view God.

At best it is a cautionary tale for those who would follow your lone ranger method in any sense lest it lead to this utter nonsense.

I have never once been shut down on this topic.

I've had lots of personal attacks, and lots of "who cares".

"Utter nonsense" a personal attack pillaged through dissonance, of a quote from an Orthodox Church "Father".

And no, I was not slapped around about the hypothetical gay child. The Orthodox responses frightened me at the lack of the EO Christians understanding their own faith. Orthodox history proves (through excommunication) that my point was valid (men excommunicated because of them being non-repentive homosexuals). Unless of course you want to challenge Orthodox bishops here.... Or just call them wrong... Or say "who cares".

When did excommunication begin equalling homelessness?

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

YIM creates this thread (a topic which he has argued about numerous times) after getting slapped around for a while about how he would treat his hypothetical gay child.

For someone who seems to be at the ready to demand his right to literally hit his own kids, he can't even take a little figurative beating.

Somehow, I find this unsurprising.

For the deflection, who cares?

Matthew was in Hebrew originally. Maybe. Who cares?

Hebrew speakers may have called Jesus something similar to Yeshua. Who cares?

YIM, how many times do you have to get shut down on this topic?

These are matters of some concern for those who study such things, but are of no theological import for the lay person.

The fact you place a string of characters in the center of whatever misagos of a theology you have cobbled together is of no import to anyone except give insight that your homebrewed-DIY-flawed approach to life infects even how you view God.

At best it is a cautionary tale for those who would follow your lone ranger method in any sense lest it lead to this utter nonsense.

I have never once been shut down on this topic.

I've had lots of personal attacks, and lots of "who cares".

"Utter nonsense" a personal attack pillaged through dissonance, of a quote from an Orthodox Church "Father".

And no, I was not slapped around about the hypothetical gay child. The Orthodox responses frightened me at the lack of the EO Christians understanding their own faith. Orthodox history proves (through excommunication) that my point was valid (men excommunicated because of them being non-repentive homosexuals). Unless of course you want to challenge Orthodox bishops here.... Or just call them wrong... Or say "who cares".